Flynn Walks.. DOJ drops case

[Wulaw Horn 18983]

8 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

He did. 

Also I think most people are aware that the government will push for guilty pleas from the pay-day loan crowd to 1) get a conviction for themselves, and 2) create a record for the defendant.

But remember that Flynn wasn't some dumbass picked up with a reefer in his pocket at 2am on Dirty South.  He was the nation's top intelligence officer also working on behalf of a foreign government.  Judge Bullneck would have him shot at dawn.

Whatever the situation is, it’s a bad legal precedent to get into, allowing the judge to force prosecution of a case the government doesn’t want to make. Bad facts make for bad law. 

[TwiceHorn 31288]

I think I figured out what Sullivan's "defense" can be for holding the Spanish Inquisition.

Ordinarily, a voluntary dismissal by the government before a jury is impaneled is "without prejudice," meaning double jeopardy does not attach and the case can be refiled at some later date within the statute of limitations.

Involuntary dismissals result from misconduct by the prosecution, e.g. a significant Brady violation.  They are with prejudice and double jeopardy attaches, so the defendant cannot be retried or prosecuted.

In the civil context, leave of court (permission) is required so that the judge can determine whether to dismiss with or without prejudice (res judicata rather than double jeopardy would prevent bringing the suit again if with prejudice). 

So, Sullivan can say he needs to sort out what happened so he can determine how to dismiss the case.  And that the public interest might be served by fleshing it out.

[Bullneck 18987]

2 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Whatever the situation is, it’s a bad legal precedent to get into, allowing the judge to force prosecution of a case the government doesn’t want to make. Bad facts make for bad law. 

I see plenty of bad things going on every day.  There is a group, a political party, that sees no downside for the things they do.  A little bit of fear probably wouldn't be a bad thing.  

[Wulaw Horn 18983]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think I figured out what Sullivan's "defense" can be for holding the Spanish Inquisition.

Ordinarily, a voluntary dismissal by the government before a jury is impaneled is "without prejudice," meaning double jeopardy does not attach and the case can be refiled at some later date within the statute of limitations.

Involuntary dismissals result from misconduct by the prosecution, e.g. a significant Brady violation.  They are with prejudice and double jeopardy attaches, so the defendant cannot be retried or prosecuted.

In the civil context, leave of court (permission) is required so that the judge can determine whether to dismiss with or without prejudice (res judicata rather than double jeopardy would prevent bringing the suit again if with prejudice). 

So, Sullivan can say he needs to sort out what happened so he can determine how to dismiss the case.  And that the public interest might be served by fleshing it out.

That’s actually pretty interesting. 

I'm dismissing This may the governments request but don’t know if Jeopardy should attach. 

[Brian Fantana 6668]

5 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Sounds like your time would be better spent tracking down those people to engage with. Maybe migrate to twitter.

I don't have to go looking for it, man. I see something about "Flynn exonerated" every other day from my crazy family members.

[Nivek 16861]

He not only pleaded guilty, he was asked by the court if the FBI behaved inappropriately or entrapped him, to which he answered "no, your honor" 

 

 

[Anastasis 23394]

7 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

I don't have to go looking for it, man. I see something about "Flynn exonerated" every other day from my crazy family members.

I can't imagine what it is like to have to wade through an in depth discussion of Michael Flynn IRL with a family member. 

 

[Nivek 16861]

7 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

I don't have to go looking for it, man. I see something about "Flynn exonerated" every other day from my crazy family members.

I had a couple of family members go down that road.  They introduced me two a bunch of ideas to which I had no idea about.  10 minutes of google (including checking sources) was enough to more than rebuke their ideas.   For shits and giggles I went ahead and then informed them including direct quotes by Flynn, and the response was 'well, I just don't have time to look into this...."   

It is a typical bullshit deflection of course.   They will never look into it.  They prefer to think of Flynn as a poor victim who was entrapped for smoking the refer at 2 AM, and not a guy whose actual defense claimed 'Flynn didn't realize it was a felony to lie to the FBI" or "Ignorance of the law is an excuse for my client."  Flynn, when being interviewed by the FBI was prompted by the agents to jog his memory.  The didn't allow him to forget about his meeting with a foreign ambassador.   He chose to lie anyway. 

 

[Brian Fantana 6668]

23 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I can't imagine what it is like to have to wade through an in depth discussion of Michael Flynn IRL with a family member. 

 

Imagine what Christmas and Thanksgiving are like

[Anastasis 23394]

11 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Imagine what Christmas and Thanksgiving are like

I think that I get a pretty good feel for it when I read posts here from certain glue eaters.  I've had the sense for a while that certain posters here project their IRL exchanges in the process of fabricating their straw man mental image of what posters here are actually arguing.  

Edited May 26, 2020 by Anastasis

[GW Hayduke 1952]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

I think that I get a pretty good feel for it when I read posts here from certain glue eaters.  I've had the sense for a while that certain posters here project their IRL exchanges in the process of fabricating their straw man mental image of what posters here are actually arguing.  

[Nivek 16861]

33 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I can't imagine what it is like to have to wade through an in depth discussion of Michael Flynn IRL with a family member. 

 

It is pretty simple.  I talk with them about a family member in hospice, plans, etc. and then the conversation meanders a bit (like this post) and then my Mom/Sister brings up something stupid Trump said, and the family Trumper chimes in about Flynn.  I listen, say I do not believe that is correct, and then counter point.     

Years ago, my brother (anti-intellectual) brought up global warming with me and used a plane crash from WWII as a proxy for how glaciers behave.  It just so happened that I was working with a guy who helped find "Glacier Girl."  Basically, his argument was based on fiction, false memories and not a single thing he claimed was true (date found, condition, spot).  The only facts he got correct was the name of the plane and the country in which it crashed landed.    His response was "hmm, I'll have to think about that."  And he never brought up science with me again.  

[TwiceHorn 31288]

Quality piece from The Atlantic on it.  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/why-didnt-trump-just-pardon-michael-flynn/612067/

[Longhorn 145]

Looks like we will probably get to read the Flynn/Kislyak transcripts.  

 

Richard Grenell has declassified a new batch of Russia probe documents on his way out as acting director of national intelligence, leaving the decision on whether to make those files public up to newly sworn-in Director John Ratcliffe.

The documents include transcripts of phone calls that then-incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak had in December 2016, during the presidential transition period. Grenell said publicly last week that he was in the process of declassifying those files, after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked that he do so.

[sheeeit 129]

Captain Ant, Hayduke etc are really trying hard to not look at the facts.  Flynn may be a bad guy but even bad guys deserve due process.

As mentioned previously, Flynn was NEVER acting as some secret foreign agent and never hid ANYTHING from the public or government.  For his dinner with Putin, Flynn notified the DIA (that is the intelligence arm of the Defense Department) prior to his trip, was briefed and counseled by the DIA on what to expect and look for in his trip and was then debriefed by the DIA when he returned.   Nothing secretive or unethical or illegal at all. 

On the Turkey stuff, Flynn registered as a lobbyist and signed a contract from a private business and private individual that had ties to Turkey.  Flynn asked counsel  who he should file the contract with and counsel told him to file with Congress through the Lobbying Disclosure Act because his client was not the government and no government funds were used to pay him.  He did file with them.  Again, nothing secretive or unethical or illegal at all.  

On his guilty plea, as mentioned by the attorneys above, people plead guil;ty to things they are not guilty of all of the time for lots of reasons.  I agree that if Flynn simply wanted a "do over" I would say fuck him, he plead so he needs to accept the deal he made.  However, as we now know based on the recent files being declassified, the FBI hid exculpatory evidence from Flynn and his lawyer.  Just as one simple example, the FBI uses their "notes" as evidence all of the time.  As a result, they were legally obligated to turn over any notes they had on Flynn.  The original FBI agents that interviewed Flynn and detailed the interview said the case on him should be closed and that, the fbi interviewers told their superiors that they did not think Flynn lied to them.  Obviously, those notes alone  would have a huge bearing on whether or not he would make a deal.  it would be extremely difficult to convince a jury he was lying when the original interviewers claimed he was not lying and they had the transcript of the call between Flynn and Kislyak already and no new information was added.

The fbi signed 3 sworn affidavits with the judge saying they had provided all of the evidence they were required to give.  3 times.  They lied.  

Further (and I would love either Wulaw or Twice to chime in on this), the fbi never made the actual transcript of the call between flynn and kislyak available to flynn or his lawyers.  I really don't see how that is legal but it appears it is.  

Hopefully the call transcript gets released.  If Flynn, did talk materially about sanctions, then he should go to jail.  If he didn't, then the fbi guys should go to jail.

[TwiceHorn 31288]

14 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Captain Ant, Hayduke etc are really trying hard to not look at the facts.  Flynn may be a bad guy but even bad guys deserve due process.

As mentioned previously, Flynn was NEVER acting as some secret foreign agent and never hid ANYTHING from the public or government.  For his dinner with Putin, Flynn notified the DIA (that is the intelligence arm of the Defense Department) prior to his trip, was briefed and counseled by the DIA on what to expect and look for in his trip and was then debriefed by the DIA when he returned.   Nothing secretive or unethical or illegal at all. 

On the Turkey stuff, Flynn registered as a lobbyist and signed a contract from a private business and private individual that had ties to Turkey.  Flynn asked counsel  who he should file the contract with and counsel told him to file with Congress through the Lobbying Disclosure Act because his client was not the government and no government funds were used to pay him.  He did file with them.  Again, nothing secretive or unethical or illegal at all.  

On his guilty plea, as mentioned by the attorneys above, people plead guil;ty to things they are not guilty of all of the time for lots of reasons.  I agree that if Flynn simply wanted a "do over" I would say fuck him, he plead so he needs to accept the deal he made.  However, as we now know based on the recent files being declassified, the FBI hid exculpatory evidence from Flynn and his lawyer.  Just as one simple example, the FBI uses their "notes" as evidence all of the time.  As a result, they were legally obligated to turn over any notes they had on Flynn.  The original FBI agents that interviewed Flynn and detailed the interview said the case on him should be closed and that, the fbi interviewers told their superiors that they did not think Flynn lied to them.  Obviously, those notes alone  would have a huge bearing on whether or not he would make a deal.  it would be extremely difficult to convince a jury he was lying when the original interviewers claimed he was not lying and they had the transcript of the call between Flynn and Kislyak already and no new information was added.

The fbi signed 3 sworn affidavits with the judge saying they had provided all of the evidence they were required to give.  3 times.  They lied.  

Further (and I would love either Wulaw or Twice to chime in on this), the fbi never made the actual transcript of the call between flynn and kislyak available to flynn or his lawyers.  I really don't see how that is legal but it appears it is.  

Hopefully the call transcript gets released.  If Flynn, did talk materially about sanctions, then he should go to jail.  If he didn't, then the fbi guys should go to jail.

The exculpatory nature of that evidence is extremely remote.

While the Brady obligation is serious, evidence can be viewed as exculpatory in hindsight very easily.

Even the government's motion to dismiss does not contend that he didn't lie.

It contends that the lies were not material because they were no longer investigating Flynn's ties or wrongdoing vis a vis Russia.

You can read the motion here.  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/read-dojs-motion-to-dismiss-charges-against-michael-flynn

What's funny is, it doesn't really lay out a coherent story about what was wrong with the investigation.  It just recites a bunch of little irregularities and Page and Strzok.

Edited May 26, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Longhorn 145]

35 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Hopefully the call transcript gets released.  If Flynn, did talk materially about sanctions, then he should go to jail.  If he didn't, then the fbi guys should go to jail.

What would be the crime committed if he did “talk materially about sanctions” on the transcript? 

[Captainant 27467]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What's funny is, it doesn't really lay out a coherent story about what was wrong with the investigation.  It just recites a bunch of little irregularities and Page and Strzok.

Which is why it's horseshit to take them at their word that their case is busted. There has been no other instance in history of a prosecution doing so without the uncovering of massive prosecutorial misconduct or new exculpatory evidence

[Lagunamadre 1975]

6 minutes ago, Longhorn said:

What would be the crime committed if he did “talk materially about sanctions” on the transcript? 

1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953

[Longhorn 145]

4 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953

The Logan Act? For real? Why not jaywalking or ripping off a mattress Tag?

Trump had already been elected. 

The real crime is that Obama waited until Dec 29th to punish Russia for interfering. It’s not like they interfered only on election day.  Obama knew well before November and waited to see the election results until he slapped sanctions or called the Russians out. He let 30+ known Russian spies operate in the US during campaign and then expelled after Hilary lost. Unreal.

 

[TwiceHorn 31288]

Just now, Longhorn said:

The Logan Act? For real? Why not jaywalking or ripping off a mattress Tag?

Trump had already been elected. 

The real crime is that Obama waited until Dec 29th to punish Russia for interfering. It’s not like they interfered only on election day.  Obama knew well before November and waited to see the election results until he slapped sanctions or called the Russians out. He let 30+ known Russian spies operate in the US during campaign and then expelled after Hilary lost. Unreal.

 

He waited six weeks?

We're still waiting for Trump to do something.

[Captainant 27467]

10 minutes ago, Longhorn said:

The real crime is that Obama waited until Dec 29th to punish Russia for interfering.

Obama couldn't even get McConnel to sign off on a statement of condemnation

[Longhorn 145]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He waited six weeks?

We're still waiting for Trump to do something.

What did he do during the campaign? Did he only realize interference on Election Day? I guess he was waiting to see who won before caring enough to levy sanctions.

[washparkhorn 9935]

1 hour ago, Longhorn said:

What would be the crime committed if he did “talk materially about sanctions” on the transcript? 

As incoming National Security Advisor? According to Obama officials at the time - nothing necessarily wrong with that. 

Quote

 

One source said there was nothing intrinsically odd or wrong about a Russian diplomat speaking to a member of Trump’s team following the U.S. announcement. Moscow, the source added, probably would want to have some sense of what Trump’s team thought about the measures. 

That sentiment was echoed Friday by State Department spokesman Mark Toner. “This building doesn’t see anything necessarily inappropriate about contact between members of the incoming administration and foreign officials,” Toner said. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN14X1YX

I would love to see the transcripts.

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour ago, Longhorn said:

What would be the crime committed if he did “talk materially about sanctions” on the transcript? 

If he did talk materially about sanctions then it would be very, very hard to say he didn't remember doing so to the fbi.  In that instance, he should be charged with lying because the lie would be 1) intentional/knowingly and 2) material to an underlying investigation about russian election interference.  Number 2 would still be a little specious but it would certainly cause more scrutiny.

Hopefully we get the transcript.  What has been "leaked" is that when asked about sanctions by the fbi, he said something to the effect of "i dont remember talking about sanctions specifically.  We might have but I don't think so."  It was reported that Kislyak asked about sanctions in some capacity and Flynn said Trump and Putin can discuss that on their call after the inauguration.  

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

He waited six weeks?

We're still waiting for Trump to do something.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/

Hard to tell how much teeth all these have but it is incorrect to say this admin has not done anything to Russia.  

And yes, Trump is still an idiot.

[GW Hayduke 1952]

Folks can read Flynn's statement of offences.  It isn't secret.  Check out who signed page 6.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download

 

[sheeeit 129]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The exculpatory nature of that evidence is extremely remote.

While the Brady obligation is serious, evidence can be viewed as exculpatory in hindsight very easily.

Even the government's motion to dismiss does not contend that he didn't lie.

It contends that the lies were not material because they were no longer investigating Flynn's ties or wrongdoing vis a vis Russia.

You can read the motion here.  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/read-dojs-motion-to-dismiss-charges-against-michael-flynn

What's funny is, it doesn't really lay out a coherent story about what was wrong with the investigation.  It just recites a bunch of little irregularities and Page and Strzok.

I get all of that, and I just used 1 example.  You are the attorney, but it certainly seems to me that if you were negotiating a plea deal regarding your client lying to the FBI and the agents that did the interview stated that they did not think your client was lying, that you would be able to use that in your negotiations.  Especially considering they (flynn and his lawyer) never got to see the transcript.  If in a 5 minute phone call there was 10 seconds of Kislyak asking about sanctions and Flynn telling him they would talk about that after the inauguration (a completely forgettable 10 seconds) then you would tell the fbi to go pound sand.  

And without getting way off in the legal weeds, it is being alleged that the fbi used prosecuting his son as leverage against flynn to plea.  I don't think there is anything wrong with that but don't they have to disclose that in his plea?  Since they were wanting to use him in future cases as a witness, doesn't the other team and the jury deserve to know that the fbi used prosecuting his son as leverage?  Shouldn't that have a bearing on his credibility?  

I am not sure you are correct about the governments motion.  It does include this ""The Government is not persuaded that it could show that Mr. Flynn committed a false statement under its burden of proof," the filing said. "The statements in question were not by their nature easily falsifiable. In his interview, Mr. Flynn offered either equivocal ('I don’t know') or indirect responses, or claimed to not remember the matter in question."  Seems like that says they didn't think he lied or, at a minimum, that they could prove it.

I am genuinely curious why you (and any other attorneys on here) will not comment on the fact that the govt was able to put pressure on flynn for lying in his call and not have to give him a copy of the call transcript.  

Edited May 27, 2020 by sheeeit

[sheeeit 129]

25 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Folks can read Flynn's statement of offences.  It isn't secret.  Check out who signed page 6.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download

 

What do you think that proves anyway?  You think people have never plead to things they were innocent of?  It happens daily.

How about this other "public" statement anyone can read:

Quote

Yeah. Flynn took money from Russia and Turkey and hid it from the US government. That was not legal. Flynn interfered with Obama’s foreign policy by negotiating with Russia and lied to Pence and the FBI about it. That was not legal. Russia and Turkey would have been able to hold all of those illegal actions over Flynn’s head while he was head of the DNI. Flynn was a clear risk to US national security. He should have known better. Flynn isn’t a victim. He’s another example of those around trump with malfeasance tempered by incompetence. 

Stupid is as stupid does.

[tx 3 putt 76409]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Obama couldn't even get McConnel to sign off on a statement of condemnation

Moscow Mitch going to Moscow Mitch !

[TwiceHorn 31288]

27 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I get all of that, and I just used 1 example.  You are the attorney, but it certainly seems to me that if you were negotiating a plea deal regarding your client lying to the FBI and the agents that did the interview stated that they did not think your client was lying, that you would be able to use that in your negotiations.  Especially considering they (flynn and his lawyer) never got to see the transcript.  If in a 5 minute phone call there was 10 seconds of Kislyak asking about sanctions and Flynn telling him they would talk about that after the inauguration (a completely forgettable 10 seconds) then you would tell the fbi to go pound sand.  

And without getting way off in the legal weeds, it is being alleged that the fbi used prosecuting his son as leverage against flynn to plea.  I don't think there is anything wrong with that but don't they have to disclose that in his plea?  Since they were wanting to use him in future cases as a witness, doesn't the other team and the jury deserve to know that the fbi used prosecuting his son as leverage?  Shouldn't that have a bearing on his credibility?  

I am not sure you are correct about the governments motion.  It does include this ""The Government is not persuaded that it could show that Mr. Flynn committed a false statement under its burden of proof," the filing said. "The statements in question were not by their nature easily falsifiable. In his interview, Mr. Flynn offered either equivocal ('I don’t know') or indirect responses, or claimed to not remember the matter in question."  Seems like that says they didn't think he lied or, at a minimum, that they could prove it.

I am genuinely curious why you (and any other attorneys on here) will not comment on the fact that the govt was able to put pressure on flynn for lying in his call and not have to give him a copy of the call transcript.  

That mumbo jumbo about him maybe not lying is in the factual background, which is a disorganized mess.

In the argument portion, the only issue they discuss is materiality of the lie.  Correction, there is a half-hearted paragraph toward then end where they give some lip service to being unable to prove the lie.

Had Flynn not pled guilty instantaneously with being charged, he would have had the right to transcripts, more than likely.  The reason the transcripts are mentioned repeatedly is to reinforce the idea that his lies were immaterial.

Edited May 27, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Wulaw Horn 18983]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The exculpatory nature of that evidence is extremely remote.

While the Brady obligation is serious, evidence can be viewed as exculpatory in hindsight very easily.

Even the government's motion to dismiss does not contend that he didn't lie.

It contends that the lies were not material because they were no longer investigating Flynn's ties or wrongdoing vis a vis Russia.

You can read the motion here.  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/read-dojs-motion-to-dismiss-charges-against-michael-flynn

What's funny is, it doesn't really lay out a coherent story about what was wrong with the investigation.  It just recites a bunch of little irregularities and Page and Strzok.

In think the standard should be higher than that for the prosecution. Where I worked it was full access to the file- not just stuff that might or might not be Brady required. That, to me, is the spirit behind Brady. If you want to be a real cocksucker on the part of the prosecution you can try to argue nothing is Brady, or they wouldn’t be bringing the case. 

I think when the government can take away life and liberty they should have to play by a really really really elevated set of rules. 

[Wulaw Horn 18983]

24 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I get all of that, and I just used 1 example.  You are the attorney, but it certainly seems to me that if you were negotiating a plea deal regarding your client lying to the FBI and the agents that did the interview stated that they did not think your client was lying, that you would be able to use that in your negotiations.  Especially considering they (flynn and his lawyer) never got to see the transcript.  If in a 5 minute phone call there was 10 seconds of Kislyak asking about sanctions and Flynn telling him they would talk about that after the inauguration (a completely forgettable 10 seconds) then you would tell the fbi to go pound sand.  

And without getting way off in the legal weeds, it is being alleged that the fbi used prosecuting his son as leverage against flynn to plea.  I don't think there is anything wrong with that but don't they have to disclose that in his plea?  Since they were wanting to use him in future cases as a witness, doesn't the other team and the jury deserve to know that the fbi used prosecuting his son as leverage?  Shouldn't that have a bearing on his credibility?  

I am not sure you are correct about the governments motion.  It does include this ""The Government is not persuaded that it could show that Mr. Flynn committed a false statement under its burden of proof," the filing said. "The statements in question were not by their nature easily falsifiable. In his interview, Mr. Flynn offered either equivocal ('I don’t know') or indirect responses, or claimed to not remember the matter in question."  Seems like that says they didn't think he lied or, at a minimum, that they could prove it.

I am genuinely curious why you (and any other attorneys on here) will not comment on the fact that the govt was able to put pressure on flynn for lying in his call and not have to give him a copy of the call transcript.  

I promise you that you know way more about this case than I do. I know literally nothing about the case or facts in question. I just know that Twice conceptually had the right side of the argument. 

 

[sheeeit 129]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That mumbo jumbo about him maybe not lying is in the factual background, which is a disorganized mess.

In the argument portion, the only issue they discuss is materiality of the lie.  Correction, there is a half-hearted paragraph toward then end where they give some lip service to being unable to prove the lie.

Had Flynn not pled guilty instantaneously with being charged, he would have had the right to transcripts, more than likely.  The reason the transcripts are mentioned repeatedly is to reinforce the idea that his lies were immaterial.

OK.  Maybe we just disagree.  I assumed that the reason the DOJ did not spend much time on the lie aspect was because Flynn's petition did not rely on it.  Obviously, everything goes into the equation when two sides are arguing.  At the end of the day (especially because the transcripts were never produced) the defense went with a different legal tactic.  This is similar to the fact that Flynn;'s plea made no mention of FARA, or Logan Act, or his son's prosecution etc.  But all of those things were obviously very important in his decision making.

We will also just have to disagree on the transcript part.  Lets take Flynn out of the equation.  Do you think it is "right" for the govt to be able to go to a person and accuse them of lying and then not have to share with them the evidence that they have regarding the lie?  I am talking from a big picture prospective.  It just doesnt seem right to me that the govt can go after someone and cause them considerable financial and reputational harm and use that as leverage to get them to cop a plea and never have to actually show them the evidence.  It is like the govt saying we have the proof and it is going to cost you millions of dollars in legal fees to see it.  I just did not think the system worked that way.

Anyway, I appreciate the feedback and insights.

[High Plains Drifter 10978]

On 5/25/2020 at 11:00 AM, TwiceHorn said:

I dig.  

I have just managed for the most part not to lose sight of the bigger picture operation of the criminal justice system in all of this.  Despite my distaste for the defendants.  That seems to infuriate a lot of people.

For better or worse, I tend to somewhat celebrate the victories of defendants, even when they're privileged and clearly corrupt.  I guess my hope is that the victories "trickle down" to the more deserving that are being ground to dust by the system.  But you know what they say about hope. . . .  I probably have a handful of shit.

 

 

[washparkhorn 9935]

4 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I promise you that you know way more about this case than I do. I know literally nothing about the case or facts in question. I just know that Twice conceptually had the right side of the argument. 

 

Same here. The law is so granular at this level, but there is wonderful legal writing addressing fundamental Constitutional rights, criminal procedure law, and stories of the Patriots of old hating how the British subjected them to indecencies. Twice is spot-on with the law. 

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by washparkhorn

[SquishMitten 10401]

One thing I don’t understand, and maybe I’m misremembering, but after he entered his plea they were ready to enter his sentencing. But then the judge pointed out something like “it was most common to withhold on sentencing until the defendant has finished cooperating with the government.” That makes sense. If they continue to cooperate, then they’ll presumably end up on the lower end of the sentencing guidelines. And vice-versa, if he fails to cooperate, he’d get a higher sentence or possibly even additional charges based on how the plea agreement was structured. But now that he’s obviously not cooperating with anything, it seems like he’s just going to walk? In reality, he could’ve/should’ve already been locked up for the last year or so. Not sure how to clarify my point here, but it seems like the only reason he isn’t locked up is because the judge hasn’t signed the order yet. The DOJ had nothing left to do with regard to the prosecution. The ball was entirely in the judge’s court. Isn’t it reasonable to say that the ball is still there?

[Lagunamadre 1975]

14 hours ago, Longhorn said:

The Logan Act? For real? Why not jaywalking or ripping off a mattress Tag?

Trump had already been elected. 

The real crime is that Obama waited until Dec 29th to punish Russia for interfering. It’s not like they interfered only on election day.  Obama knew well before November and waited to see the election results until he slapped sanctions or called the Russians out. He let 30+ known Russian spies operate in the US during campaign and then expelled after Hilary lost. Unreal.

 

You asked a question. I answered it. It is a crime. It even has a code. You might not care about it, but it's a crime. 

Now point to the criminal code of the "crime" of Obama waiting to sanction the Russians. 

[SquishMitten 10401]

Taking my thought a little farther, it's definitely a slippery-slope to say that the DOJ could NEVER pull back after a plea deal. I can't think of a specific hypothetical, but I could imagine there being SOME scenario where during the course of the defendant's cooperation with the government, they were able to become SO helpful that the government felt it was fair to drop all previous charges. I mean, one purpose of jail time is theoretically to reform. That part of the goal could be accomplished through extensive cooperation. Hard to imagine how the punishment aspect is accomplished, but for high-profile individuals, the shame and loss of credibility would be pretty substantial. My problem here is that this is certainly not what has happened. It's purely political. Letting the judge sentence him at this point, over the DOJs objection, is bad precedent for anything in the future that could fall under my hypothetical. But not sentencing him now is bad precedent for future prosecutors getting defendants to enter into lengthy, cooperative plea agreements. If they risk the defendant being able to walk because they delay sentencing (like what will likely happen here), they lose a lot of incentive to allow for these agreements (thus also losing a strong tool).

[CowboyFred 1151]

15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The exculpatory nature of that evidence is extremely remote.

While the Brady obligation is serious, evidence can be viewed as exculpatory in hindsight very easily.

Even the government's motion to dismiss does not contend that he didn't lie.

It contends that the lies were not material because they were no longer investigating Flynn's ties or wrongdoing vis a vis Russia.

You can read the motion here.  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/read-dojs-motion-to-dismiss-charges-against-michael-flynn

What's funny is, it doesn't really lay out a coherent story about what was wrong with the investigation.  It just recites a bunch of little irregularities and Page and Strzok.

almost like it is politically motivated...

[wildcat09 29261]

I feel pretty confident that the DOJ's line of reasoning about materiality of a lie is going to be thrown in their face hundreds of times by defense attorneys going forward, and that the DOJ will not once go "oops, you're right, our bad!" and drop charges.

[JBJ 3649]

22 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

One thing I don’t understand, and maybe I’m misremembering, but after he entered his plea they were ready to enter his sentencing. But then the judge pointed out something like “it was most common to withhold on sentencing until the defendant has finished cooperating with the government.” That makes sense. If they continue to cooperate, then they’ll presumably end up on the lower end of the sentencing guidelines. And vice-versa, if he fails to cooperate, he’d get a higher sentence or possibly even additional charges based on how the plea agreement was structured. But now that he’s obviously not cooperating with anything, it seems like he’s just going to walk? In reality, he could’ve/should’ve already been locked up for the last year or so. Not sure how to clarify my point here, but it seems like the only reason he isn’t locked up is because the judge hasn’t signed the order yet. The DOJ had nothing left to do with regard to the prosecution. The ball was entirely in the judge’s court. Isn’t it reasonable to say that the ball is still there?

Part of his plea was no jail time if he cooperated.  In the original sentencing, the prosecution recommended no jail time because he was cooperating.  Sullivan represented in the sentencing hearing that he wasn't going to follow the prosecution's recommendations at that point and advised Flynn to postpone, which all parties agreed to.  The judge pretty much gave him the option of withdrawing his plea, jail time, or postponing.  He did the first and third.

And, no, the judge can't impose a sentence now.

[Message Board User 12389]

 

[Francisco 2.0 32343]

Nothing like a Friday night news dump.  

And that's why this fucker was going to be crucified by the judge over a year ago.

 

 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

This reminds me of when trump kept saying the Ukraine transcripts somehow exonerated him

[hobbes2702 12847]

Ummm, ok so explain to me as a layman how that is not a violation of the espionage act?

Edited May 30, 2020 by hobbes2702

[Francisco 2.0 32343]

Not that they give a fuck, but honestly,  how does the DOJ square up their decision with this transcript release?  

 

[HenryJames 65890]

 

[TwiceHorn 31288]

Wrong quote.  Responding to hobbes.

I'm not real interested in defending Flynn, but Ok, so that maybe contradicts US policy at the time.  When it's going to change, pefectly legally, in about three weeks.

If you mean the Logan Act, it isn't a serious piece of legislation.  Neither, really, is the Espionage Act of 1917, which is bookended by the infamous Sedition Act of 1918.  All of them are fraught with First Amendment problems, among others.

Edited May 30, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31288]

13 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Not that they give a fuck, but honestly,  how does the DOJ square up their decision with this transcript release?  

 

Again, not to defend Flynn, but he said he didn't recall a tit for tat.  That is still conceivable given what's stated there.  We don't actually have a transcript of the FBI interview, because, incomprehensibly, the FBI categorically refused to tape interviews until very recently.  And they still don't tape most of them.

Edited May 30, 2020 by TwiceHorn